ok guys , nobody needs to get upset ,its fine it's just fine don't worry , no really don't worry , no pressure what so ever ,no one is under
pressure to participate its every body's choice, now where is that damn button

Quite possible and I take your point. I was watching the posts as they came in on the original YouTube page and they were very hostile. Every posting
was negative. Here is one from a few minutes ago:

acts17v11 (4 minutes ago)
By the way, I started watching this with my two ten year old boys, thinking﻿ it would be some harmless, fun video. They screamed when the first kids
got blown up and ran out of the room absolutely petrified and wanting to vomit. Are you proud of that? Morons.

If they wanted to promote their beliefs then they have failed.

Wow. Her kids are gonna probably commit suicide when they find out that sex is how children are created.

Well, the YouTube comment showed the kids as deathly afraid. See, this is what happens when you don't expose kids to the real world.

There were all sorts of things that scared me as a kid that do not scare me now, most of them made up. Even if they weren't made up, they don't
scare me now either. Complete desensitization to blowing someone to bits is another matter altogether.

It could be the parents exaggerating their childrens' reactions because the parents are actually the ones more disturbed and they're saving them
selves from their own embarrasment by attributing anger to themselves and extreme fear to their children. Just a thought.

I don get it. I think the video was kind of funny, but if anything it makes me not wanna do my part. The environmentalists come off as Nazis. I'm not
sure what the intentions of the producers of this commercial are. Are they really for cutting carbon emission? They are demonizing themselves. Or is
this satire? Once again, I just don't get it. But anyone offended by the video better grow up fast cuz it's an ugly world out there

I wish I had that button!
Funny all you hypocrites are against freedom of expression and cry like a stuck pig the instant something doesn't agree with you.
This video must not share your sense of humor.

So, since we seem to have many armchair climatologists here who seem to think they are infinitely wiser than real professional scientists, I feel a
little debunky..

well yeah global warming IS real...but the human cause of it ISNT!!! you can not stop global warming...the earth has a natural cycle of heating up
and cooling down...you cant stop that. educate yourself

So if you claim that recent warming of the Earth is natural, what is the forcing agent causing it? Are you claiming that human caused rapid increase
in CO2 (38% in 100 years - natural processes would cause such change in 10 000s of years) does not have any effect?

That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study
climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus
position.

In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the
past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.

Fundamental physics and global climate models both make testable predictions as to how the global climate should change in response to
anthropogenic warming. Almost universally, empirical observations confirm that these 'fingerprints' of anthropogenic global warming are
present.

The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science.
Many people think the anthropogenic warming can't be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists
have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.

A full reading of Tsonis and Swanson's research shows that internal variability from climate shifts merely cause temporary slow downs or speeding
up of the long-term warming trend. When the internal variability is removed from the temperature record, what we find is nearly monotonic,
accelerating warming throughout the 20th Century.

Global Warming has been shown to be a hoax, since the main scientist proponents of the AGW hoax were caught talking about hiding data, falsifying
information, even using all legal and illegal ways TO KEEP PEOPLE IN THE DARK, and they have even resorted to use idiotic and FALSE messages
knowingly, similar to that video of the exploding kids, such as the false claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt in 2015, which in actuality
later they had to admit they KNEW the data actually said IT COULD melt by 2350, but they needed to scare people and governments, and of course they
have to catch the attention of most people who are not educated enough to understand what is actually happening.

Oh, come on.. The whole "Climategate" affair has been greatly exagerrated by the public. There is nothing in those emails that proves any tampering
with the data or significant mistakes.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group I issued statements that the assessment process, involving hundreds of scientists
worldwide, is designed to be transparent and to prevent any individual or small group from manipulating the process. The statement said that the
"internal consistency from multiple lines of evidence strongly supports the work of the scientific community, including those individuals singled out
in these email exchanges".[62][63]

The American Meteorological Society stated that the incident did not affect the society's position on climate change. They pointed to the breadth of
evidence for human influence on climate, stating "For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the
dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the
charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true—which is not yet clearly the case—the impact on the science of climate
change would be very limited."[64]

The American Geophysical Union issued a statement that they found "it offensive that these emails were obtained by illegal cyber attacks and they are
being exploited to distort the scientific debate about the urgent issue of climate change." They reaffirmed their 2007 position statement on climate
change "based on the large body of scientific evidence that Earth's climate is warming and that human activity is a contributing factor. Nothing in
the University of East Anglia hacked e-mails represents a significant challenge to that body of scientific evidence."[65]

While some of the private correspondance is not commendable, an informed examination of their "suggestive" emails reveal technical discussions
using techniques well known in the peer reviewed literature. Focusing on a few suggestive emails merely serves to distract from the wealth of
empirical evidence for man-made global warming

The planet had been warming for over 200 years before atmospheric CO2 levels even began to increase, not to mention that the environlunatics have
resorted to tactics such as claiming "the Sun is not that important for climate change", or "water vapor is not that important of a ghg" when in
fact both the Sun, and water vapor are two of the main causes that has been causing the warming.

When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to
give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising
temperature causes CO2 rise.

In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the
past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.

Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any
warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming.

So yeah, if we light a fuse (CO2) to cause the bomb to go off (H2O), we are not responsible for the explosion? I dont think so. We can still avert the
explosion by not lighting the fuse.

The Earth's geological record itself has shown that many times in the past atmospheric CO2 levels were higher than at present and temperatures were
cooler, and there have been times like the Roman Warming, and the Medieval Warming Periods which were a lot warmer than it has been so far and
atmospheric CO2 levels were around 280-290 ppm, and this proves that atmospheric CO2 is not an important ghg, and does not contribute to warming at
the levels it exists in Earth's atmosphere.

The main drivers of the Little Ice Age cooling were decreased solar activity and increased volcanic activity. These factors cannot account for the
global warming observed over the past 50-100 years. Furthermore, it is physically incorrect to state that the planet is simply "recovering" from the
Little Ice Age.

When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also lower. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate.

Also, its not only about the absolute level of CO2. Its about the RATE of increase. Humans managed to raise the level by 38% in just 100 years, which
is absolutely unnatural. If we continue and burn all the fossil fuels depositing in millions of years in just 200 years, thus tripling the amount of
atmospheric CO2 in such a short time, do you honestly think the effects on climate would and sudden change of conditions for the biosphere would not
be catastophic?

While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.

A warmer atmosphere can contain more water vapor, and more water vapor forms in the atmosphere which increases temperatures, and produces a feedback
effect which the environlunatics have wrongly attributed to CO2.

Its not attributed to CO2, this effect is known, and significantly increases the risks of rapid rising CO2, since it amplifies the effect of CO2 by
positive feedback. See above the bomb and the fuse analogy.

Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any
warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming.

The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science.
Many people think the anthropogenic warming can't be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists
have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.

Even people who own greenhouses know for a fact that MORE atmospheric CO2 than that which exists in Earth's atmosphere would be BENEFICIAL to ALL
LIFE on the planet.

www.skepticalscience.com...
Maybe if it increased slowly and naturally (10 000 of years..) and life would have time to adapt to changing climate. But if it increases more
rapidly, cons far more outweight the pros.

While there are direct ways in which CO2 is a pollutant (acidification of the ocean), its primary impact is its greenhouse warming effect. While
the greenhouse effect is a natural occurence, too much warming has severe negative impacts on agriculture, health and environment.

A large number of ancient mass extinction events have been strongly linked to global climate change. Because current climate change is so rapid,
the way species typically adapt (eg - migration) is, in most cases, simply not be possible. Global change is simply too pervasive and occurring too
rapidly.

Less atmospheric CO2 will mean less harvests/less food, which means more starvation around the planet... But for some reason the people who believe in
AGW, even when the main scientists proponents have been exposed as liars trying to push a hoax on people, can't put this picture together
together.... less atmospheric CO2 which leads to less yields and growth of all plants which equals to less food and this means more starvation
worldwide...

Since CO2 level increased by 38% in the last 100 years, having a shortage of CO2 is the last thing we should worry about. But cons of rapidly
increased CO2 far more outweight the pros.

While CO2 is essential for plant growth, all agriculture depends also on steady water supplies, and climate change is likely to disrupt those
supplies through floods and droughts. It has been suggested that higher latitudes – Siberia, for example – may become productive due to global
warming, but the soil in Arctic and bordering territories is very poor, and the amount of sunlight reaching the ground in summer will not change
because it is governed by the tilt of the earth. Agriculture can also be disrupted by wildfires and changes in seasonal periodicity, which is already
taking place, and changes to grasslands and water supplies could impact grazing and welfare of domestic livestock. Increased warming may also have a
greater effect on countries whose climate is already near or at a temperature limit over which yields reduce or crops fail – in the tropics or
sub-Sahara, for example.

So go ahead and keep cheering for the new eugenics religion....

What does the cause have to do with eugenics (the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human
population)? What is bad about eugenics, if applied by peaceful means?
Are you trying to discredit the opposition by comparing them to Hitler? What a classic..

Love the irony of people who claim to love plants and animals of all kinds (often over humans) calling for less atmospheric CO2. Seems to me that
since plants (and the animals that consume them) thrive in higher CO2 levels, the greenies should actually be clamoring to the State for increased CO2
levels, which would benfit everything thats green immensely! (not to mention increase crop yeilds, but we cant have that, noooooo, if less people
starve there would be more people and thus more evil CO2!)

It's as if someone actually set out to prove the worldwide belief that Americans have no understanding of irony. If they did, it seems they were
proven correct!

I suppose there are just some cultural bridges that are too big, and in this case obviously unexpected, to cross.

It's a very tongue in cheek British satire that people here get (with the obvious exception of Daily Mail readers) and Americans seem to think is to
be taken seriously. Probably because it's the only western country where exploding people who disagree with you would actually be considered a
sensible option....

This is the kind of thing that would have been considered edgy 40 years ago if Monty Python had done it but now, really?? Shouldn't we have matured
a bit?

Anyway, to me the message is one that crosses all aspects of life, not just carbon reduction (whether you agree that it is necessary or not). If
people are being indifferent or obstructive to a course of action that the majority consider to be necessary and important, ignore them and get on
with it. Don't waste time on them. That's not a sentiment that will please the 'everyone's opinion should be catered for' crowd on here, but
hey, in my experience most people don't have a clue what they're talking about most of the time (including me on most subjects) and the ones who are
most determined for their opinions to be heard are usually the ones who least deserve to be listened to.

It's trying to make a broad social point, it did it in a way that appeals to the European humour, some Americans took it the wrong way and forced it
to be withdrawn. How democratic. At least a war didn't start over it I suppose

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.